FAQ

1. What is a patent?
2. Can anyone patent an animal?
3. What is the goal of your campaign?
4. What is wrong with patenting animals?
5. If someone genetically engineers an animal, haven't they, in effect, created or invented him/her?
6. Which animals have been patented?
7. Do other countries issue patents on animals?
8. What can I do to stop animal patenting?

What is a patent?

A patent is granted by the U.S. government through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and it allows individuals or institutions to temporarily monopolize an 'invention.' A patent is a property right, according to the USPTO, "[to] any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" and is sought to exclude others from replicating, selling, or using the invention without paying a fee. Patent rights can last up to 20 years.

Can anyone patent an animal?

Yes, as long as their application fulfills the legal requirements of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Starting in 1987, corporations, individuals, and others have been able to obtain patents on nonhuman animals, just as if they were like other manmade 'inventions,' such as kitchen appliances or toys. An animal usually has to be put into a new state or condition for such a patent to be granted, but this can range widely. Animals can be, but do not have to be, genetically manipulated to be patented. Other examples of animal patents include those on animals who have been exposed to bacteria, surgically altered, or given a vaccine. Corporations can use the temporary legal monopoly granted by patents on animals to maximize profitable exploitation of them.

What is the goal of your campaign?

In this campaign, AAVS is specifically challenging a patent involving healthy rabbits whose eyes have been glued open and purposefully damaged to mimic human conditions such as "dry eye." We have requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) repeal this patent.

AAVS is opposed to the patenting of all animals. In our challenge, we argue that animals are not mere "compositions of matter," or machines created by humans, and are thus not patentable subject matter.

In addition, by allowing patents on animals, the USPTO creates an incentive to alter and harm these sentient beings for economic gain, and detracts from efforts to develop alternatives to the use of animals in research, education, and testing. It is our position that animal patents are an inappropriate and unethical application of U.S. patent law that must not be allowed to continue.

AAVS also contends that the rabbit patent fails to meet the "novel" and "nonobvious" requirements of patent law because there already exist reports of similar procedures involving rabbits, and the methods claimed in the patent to damage the rabbits' eyes would have been obvious to a professional in the field based on such reports.

We engaged in a similar campaign when we challenged a patent issued on beagle dogs whose immune systems were weakened and who were then exposed to a mold to induce lung infections. That campaign caused the patent holders to drop all claims to their patent, saving the beagles from further exploitation.

What is wrong with patenting animals?

(See also: What is the goal of your campaign?)

Animals are more than the sum of their parts. They are not inanimate objects, such as toasters or toilets, but complex beings who display emotion and self-awareness. Yet patents on animals typically contain overly broad claims including not only the process by which the animals are manipulated, but also the animals themselves who result from that manipulation.

Inherent in the patenting of animals is animal suffering, as the limits of what new suffering and pain they can tolerate are explored and violated. The ease in obtaining animal patents has essentially created a stampede to engage in every imaginable manipulation of animals. In doing so, experimenters have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is hardly how a moral society should conduct itself.

If someone genetically engineers an animal, haven't they in effect created or invented him/her?

Many animals who have been patented are not genetically engineered, including the rabbits in the patent that AAVS is challenging. For example, some animals who have been patented were infected with a virus, while others have been surgically altered or injected with a toxin.

However, even if an animal's genetic structure has been manipulated, thus causing the onset of a disease, the patentee still did not invent the animal, nor can he/she absolutely control the animal.

Which animals have been patented?

In 1988, the first patent was issued on an animal, dubbed the 'Oncomouse,' which involved mice who are genetically manipulated to develop cancer. The patent was sought by Harvard University, which exclusively licensed the patent to the DuPont company.

Since then, over 660 patents have been issued on animals such as cats, cattle, chickens, chimpanzees, dogs, fish, horses, macaque monkeys, mice, pigs, rats, and sheep. To read examples of patents on animals, click here.

According to the Patent Watch Project of the International Center for Technology Assessment, nearly 30 percent of the patents on animals are owned or developed through funding by the federal government, and approximately 32% of U.S. patents on animals are owned by individuals and corporations outside of the U.S., mainly Canada and Japan.

Do other countries issue patents on animals?

According to the PatentWatch Project, animal patents have been prohibited in: Belarus, Brazil, China, Denmark, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, and Thailand.

In December 2002, the Canadian Supreme Court considered an appeal by Harvard University, which sought to patent the 'Oncomouse,' a mouse genetically manipulated to develop cancer. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 against Harvard, declaring that mice and other 'higher' animals could not be patented according to Canadian laws, which are similar to U.S. laws. Despite the fact that Harvard, which markets the mice through the DuPont company, argued that genetically-altered animals should be legally defined as 'patentable machines,' the Canadian Court disagreed.

The United Kingdom, European Union (EU), Australia, and Japan have issued patents on animals, such as the 'Oncomouse.' However, in the case of the EU, patent applicants must demonstrate the patent's direct benefit to society, as well as balance any perceived benefit against the suffering of the animal.

What can I do to stop animal patenting?

Click here to find out What You Can Do.